dissent is patriotic
by Sandra Kinne
Published: July 7, 2008
General Wesley Clark was right. Riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down isn’t a qualification to be president.
Last weekend, while on “Face the Nation,” in the context of a discussion around John McCain’s executive experience and qualifications for president, Clark used the retort in response to host Bob Schieffer’s comment that Barack Obama does not have executive experience nor had he ridden in a fighter plan and been shot down. Many people, particularly those full of hot air in front of a camera, have bashed Clark’s comment and ignored the preface to it. Prior to the sound bite making the rounds, Clark said, “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.” With little other news and an abbreviated week due to the holiday, the traditional media blew the story out of proportion and perceived Clark’s comment to be an attack on McCain’s patriotism. It wasn’t. Though, even without a slow news week or holiday, the media would have made an entire mountain range out of a molehill.
Though I disagree with him on nearly every policy and political issue, there was a time when I’d have voted for McCain simply because of his uniformed service to this country. I still remember hostile email exchanges with a relative in 2000 – mostly hostile on my end, mostly ignored on his – over George W. Bush and his lack of military experience. (Unaccounted-for time in the Texas Guard notwithstanding, I’ve spent more time in fatigues than GW.) Though I’ve not served, I understand the military mentality to a greater degree than many, especially of my generation which has not encountered selective service. You don’t spend the first 14 years of your life living on places beginning with the word “Fort” and not get some sense of what it means to be in the military. I also understand how difficult it is to criticize someone in uniform for something they did – or didn’t do – as part of the role in the military.
McCain’s service to this country, whether giving or following orders, is admirable and noble. Not only was he a prisoner of war for 5 1/2 years, McCain has also served in Congress for more than two decades. Regardless of where he stands on the issues, I hold that type of dedication and service to the country in high regard. It’s awfully gutsy of Clark to question it. But he has every right to and should. Clark, who served 34 years in the military and led NATO forces, had a point. Military service isn’t required of our commander-in-chief nor should it be.
When a candidate runs on their war-time hero record – and leave no doubt, McCain is a war-time hero – it still is open to scrutiny, especially by a fellow veteran. This was the basis of the Swift boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004, and the issues of draft dodging and military service have been raised against Bill Clinton, Al Gore and George W. Bush, and rightfully so. Willfully wearing the uniform, running to Oxford or posing for a picture in front a fighter jet then having your daddy’s friends destroy and doctor your records while you disappear from your National Guard duties are legitimate issues to raise if one is running for president. When one campaigns on their wartime record and military experience, as Kerry did four years ago, it should be questioned and examined. Should it be done so in a malicious, dishonest and vile way as with the Swift boat attacks? Absolutely not. Should it be done at all? Absolutely.
Clark raising the issue of McCain’s military service and his qualifications for the executive office on the basis of that military service is not the same as calling McCain unpatriotic or bashing his 23 years of service, including an inconceivable 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war. Clark was not discrediting McCain’s commitment to the country or questioning his service record. He was simply making the point: military service alone does not qualify one to be president of the United States. Nor does the lack of military service disqualify one to be president of the United States. However, when you run for POTUS and campaign on certain criteria as qualifications for the job, in McCain’s case, his military service, you should expect those credentials to be thoroughly examined – especially by colleagues and other veterans who have first-hand experience in your field.
But McCain is running on more than just his military record. If Democrats are going to go after McCain, we should do so on his leadership in Congress. It’s far less impressive.
Rather than learn from his own experiences and recognize how tragic and unnecessary war can be, McCain blindly supported GW’s call to arms and continues to advocate US presence in Iraq for an infinite amount of time. (Though, 100 years is pretty finite, it does not seem so to a weary public and an even more exhausted military.) McCain’s status as a veteran did not compel him to support an updated G.I. Bill, providing servicemen and women with renewed resources after their sacrifice to and for our country. He may have fought for our country and its core belief of equality and justice for all, but McCain didn’t put that idea into practice when he failed to vote in April for the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which sought equal pay for women.
Leadership in peace time is just as important as leadership in war-time, and knowing when military action is not warranted is as strong an indication of judgment as knowing when to send in troops or drop a bomb.
For months, I’ve said to anyone who has asked for my thoughts on vice presidential picks – and to some who haven’t – Obama will probably pick Clark for his ticket. Clark has a strong military background; he’s from Arkansas (by way of Chicago, natch); he was an early and staunch Hillary supporter, so selecting him would appeal to her base; and, presumably, he’s well-vetted as he staged his own presidential primary bid in 2004.
With his remarks, Clark may have made Obama’s decision much easier and taken himself off the short list. Despite the brouhaha of the last few days, he’d still be a good pick. He’s shown he can be the attack dog and stick by his words without apologizing. Unless you’re George W. and ignore all the information staring you in the face, sticking to one’s guns can actually be a good thing. It shows you have principle, you say what you mean rather than dance around a topic, and it keeps your spine in place. After the way Obama flailed about like a fish out of water last week (telecom immunity, Supreme Court’s death penalty decision, that ridiculous eagle emblem), it would do him some good to have a VP who is both aggressive and unyielding.
Plus, despite what I said above, the whole “General” title on the ticket would be helpful. Many people think military experience is essential for the commander-in-chief, and with the United States at war in two countries, it wouldn’t hurt to have a veteran on the ticket. Not only would Clark add gravitas to the ticket, he would also lend credence to Obama’s repeatedly-stated appreciation for McCain’s military service. It would be awfully hard to say Obama and his camp are challenging McCain’s patriotism with the veteran Clark on the ticket.
It would be a heck of lot more helpful, though, if Clark remembered an old adage from his Army days and applied to his surrogacy with the Obama campaign: When they want your opinion, they’ll give it to you.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
July 8th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Clark is the wrong man for the ticket. Why give a reason to the right to flock in anti-support of the Great Turncoat. No, Obama needs a woman on the ticket. Period.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Hey, Sandra….who is Barack Obama again? What are his accomplishments, how long did he serve in the senate? Thanks for the info in advance.
Absolutely disgusting for Clark to say that. Does it make McCain a better executive? Ofcourse it does, in the foreign policy sector. He is much more knowledgeable than Obama. Obama hasnt even been to Iraq. As for economics, liberal policies are just disastrous. You want to raise taxes while we r heading towards a recession? I know you liberals dont have much knowledge in economics, but please, take a class or something!
July 9th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Nick, I’m not voting for Barack but I’m not at all concerned with his military record. The Presidency is an administrative position. A good administrator can run a school, a chemical company, a country. If you can read people, understand trends and react correctly, it doesn’t matter what your position is, you’ll do a fine job. Though I disagree with every Obama policy position, I’ve yet to see him prove himself an incapable administrator.